Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 146
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Sri Marati Ramulu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No.15088 Of 2025
Decided On : 14-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K RAMACHANDRA
For the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE
Parties must be allowed to present their objections to dispossession notices, ensuring compliance with due process and principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Articles 14, 21, 300A of the Constitution of India - Telangana Bhu Bharati (Records of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 - Writ Petition challenging the notice issued for dispossession - Notice declared illegal for non-compliance with due process - Petitioner entitled to submit objections against the notice and seek personal hearing. (Paras 1, 6, 9)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement to grant opportunity to respond to notices - Court emphasizes the necessity of following legal procedures in land disputes. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of agricultural land, sought relief against a notice issued for land dispossession regarding specific survey numbers. Prior to this, the petitioner had obtained an ex-parte injunction against interference from another party over the same land.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petitioner to submit objections to the notice and mandated that the concerned authority consider these objections before taking any further action.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could approach the court without first submitting objections to the notice issued regarding land dispossession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioner had the right to raise objections against the notice and require the authority to conduct a hearing before taking action, reaffirming principles of due process.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition disposed of with directions. (Para 1 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. respondent argues petitioner's approach is premature. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 3. court permits petitioner to submit objections. (Para 3 , 9) |
| 4. petitioner claims ownership of agricultural land. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
“to issue Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmus declaring the Notice of 4th Respondent/Tahsildar issued vide Lr. No. 2025 dated. 08.05.2025 for the purpose of dispossession showing the cause of excess land stated as proposed correction/deletion of Petitioners agricultral land an extent of Ac. 1.00 in Sy. No. 41/1E/3 and Ac. 1.00 Gts. in Sy. No. 41 in Parvathapur Village, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as ultra-vires, illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, 300A of Constitution of India and against the provisions of Bhu Bharati (Records of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 and subsequently direct the official respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to follow the procedure as per the Law pertains to Petitioners agricultural land an extent of Ac. 1.00 in Sy. No. 41/1E/3 and Ac. 1.00 Gts. in Sy. No. 41 in Parvathapur Village, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass.”
2. Heard Sri K.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted the relief and sought permission to the petitioner to submit explanation to the impugned notice dated 08.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 by raising all the grounds, which are available under law including the grounds, which are raised in the present writ petition.
4. In view of the above said submissions, with the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission and notice in respect of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is dispensed with.
5. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.41/1E/3, Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.41 and Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.41/3EE/1 situated at Parvathapur Village, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the revenue authorities mutated his name in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book. When respondent No.6 and her husband Shankaraiah are trying to interfere with the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 covered by Sy.No.41/1E/3 and Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.41, the petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction. Along with the said suit, the petitioner also filed an application i.e. I.A.No.86 of 2024 for grant of ad interim injunction and an ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted on 20.03.2024 and the said injunction order is continuing till date and respondent No.6 was set exparte. At the instance of respondent No.5, respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice on 08.05.2025, though he is not having any such power to entertain the application for correction/deletion of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.41/1E/3 and Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.41 in Parvathapur Village and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025.
6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the petitioner, without submitting any objections/explanation to the impugned notice dated 08.05.2025, straightaway approached this Court and filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable under law and the petitioner is entitled to raise all the grounds which are available before respondent No.4.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the peti
